This paper deals with Bonaventure’s stand on the separability of accidents discussed within the framework of the theology of the Eucharist, in his Commentarium in Sententias, IV, d. 12, p. 1, a. 1, q. 1. Since an accident was traditionally defined as ens in alio, the existence of accidents apart from any subject in the Eucharist was considered philosophically challenging. The Franciscan theologian has been credited with having distinguished, for the first time (Bakker PJJM. La raison et le miracle: (...) les doctrines eucharistiques (c. 1250 – c.1400): contribution à l’étude des rapports entre philosophie et théologie. s.n., Nijmegen, 1999; Vijgen J. The status of Eucharistic accidents “sine subiecto”: An historical survey up to Thomas Aquinas and selected reactions. München: Akademie Verlag, 2013), between the relation of accident to subject secundum aptitudinem, and the relation of accident to subject secundum actum, while sustaining that only the relation to subject secundum aptitudinem constitutes the accident’s proper definition, a view that Aquinas would subscribe to and develop further, relying on Avicenna’s idea of the real distinction between essence and existence. The chapter will discuss Bonaventure’s rather different reasons for refusing to accept actual being in alio as the accident’s essence. Bonaventure does not appeal to a distinction between being and essence but draws on the common essence of accidents in individualized substances vs. accidents as universals, or accidents secundum species sive differentias speciales. (shrink)

L’influence du corpus paulinien sur l’œuvre et la pensée d’Hilaire de Poitiers est évidente autant dans l’approche exégétique de l’évêque vis-à-vis des textes bibliques que dans les sujets qu’il traite. Parmi ceux-ci, la justification par la foi fait l’objet d’un développement remarquable dans ses œuvres principales, en particulier dans le Commentarium in Matthaeum, dans laquelle l’évêque de Poitiers souligne la capacité exclusive de la foi pour justifier l’être humain et l’impuissance des œuvres pour l’atteindre. Cette radicalité apparente de son (...) approche dans sa première œuvre connue a donné lieu à une compréhension partiale du traitement que fait Hilaire de la justification par la foi. Dans cet article nous analyserons la véritable nature du rôle que jouent la foi et le mérite pour le salut dans l’ensemble des écrits de l’évêque de Poitiers tout en mettant sa doctrine en contexte avec celle de l’Apôtre. (shrink)

Seit dem 2. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert werden die Schriften von Aristoteles kommentiert. Diese Ausgabe enthält griechische Kommentare zu seinem Werk vom 3. bis 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr., u. a. von Alexander von Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in griechischer Sprache.

Expanded version of author's thesis --Universite Paris IV, 1999.

Seit dem 2. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert werden die Schriften von Aristoteles kommentiert. Diese Ausgabe enthält griechische Kommentare zu seinem Werk vom 3. bis 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr., u. a. von Alexander von Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in griechischer Sprache.

Commentaries on Aristotle's writings have been produced since the 2nd century AD. This edition contains Greek commentaries on his work from the 3rd to the 8th centuries AD by, among others, Alexander of Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in Greek.

Seit dem 2. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert werden die Schriften von Aristoteles kommentiert. Diese Ausgabe enthält griechische Kommentare zu seinem Werk vom 3. bis 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr., u. a. von Alexander von Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in griechischer Sprache.

Seit dem 2. nachchristlichen Jahrhundert werden die Schriften von Aristoteles kommentiert. Diese Ausgabe enthält griechische Kommentare zu seinem Werk vom 3. bis 8. Jahrhundert n. Chr., u. a. von Alexander von Aphrodiensias, Themistios, Joh. Philoponus, Simplicius in griechischer Sprache.

This is an edition of an extensive Latin commentary on Aristotle's Sophistical Refutations composed about 1205 by an anonymous Parisian master who was a philosophically perceptive close reader of the Aristotelian text. The only extant manuscript of his work is now in Cambridge. The commentary is an important source of information about the development of logic at the time when the masters in Paris were beginning to organize themselves into what was to become the University of Paris.

In his Commentarium in Hieremiam, as well as in other contemporary works, Jerome accuses Pelagius of conducting a defamatory campaign against him by accusing him of Origenism, contempt for marriage and more generally, of wishing others ill. Did Jerome really seek to discredit his adversary, or were such accusations even circulating? This paper takes into consideration Pelagius’s surviving works and intends to give – within the limits admitted by the sources – an answer to this question, coming to the (...) conclusion that the conflict between the two writers was not lacking in personal attacks, and that Jerome’s report is thus trustworthy. (shrink)